MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904927696 · doi:10.5383/ijtee.17.01.001

Comparing Between Best Energy Efficient Techniques Worldwide with Existing Solution Implemented in Al-Ahliyya Amman University

2018· article· en· W2904927696 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ammar Alkhalidi, Walaa Hassan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Thermal and Environmental Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPayback periodRenewable energyInvestment (military)Environmental economicsReturn on investmentPhotovoltaic systemInternal rate of returnElectricityZero-energy buildingPhotovoltaicsEfficient energy useEnvironmental scienceBusinessEngineeringElectrical engineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this research paper, an overview of energy reduction methods around the world in commercial buildings was investigated, to find out the best solution for minimizing electricity demand of Al-Ahliyya Amman University (AAU).Those methods are renewable energy technologies mainly wind and photovoltaics (PV) system using either conventional or Carbon Nanotubes panels, building envelope system mainly dynamic Insulation materials and cool roof coating and National country system mainly demand response program and energy consumption ration. According to the overview, the best-promised method solution to achieve the target of saving, reducing investment cost and carbon emissions in AAUis the Standalone Hybrid Carbon Nanotubes PV system. This method was compared with the existing on-grid PV system project applied in AAU. The comparison was based on investment cost, payback period and solar cell efficiency. The comparison analysis results revealed that Standalone Carbon Nanotube PV system was able to save 21.12% of the investment cost when compared to the existing AAU project with a reduced payback period from 10 to 8 years and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of 16%.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Thermal and Environmental EngineeringSame topicGlobal Energy and Sustainability ResearchFrench-language works237,207